The legal precedent is that encryption is a munition in the United States, and therefore protected by the Second Amendment.
Don't confuse people here, there is no such precedent.
Bitcoin is a digital currency. It's not a weapon, it's not a free speech mechanism. There's absolutely no way that any court would deem that Bitcoin is protected within the First or the Second amendment. If the US government has a precedent of seizing gold, why would it recognize the right to own Bitcoin as a part of the Constitution?
Snipped
Despite all the rough and hard times bitcoin had suffered from US i can tell you vividly that US is still one of the countries with the highest numbers of bitcoiners in the world, yet it government attacking to regulate the currency, but your comparison here is what may be confusing because I don't see any correlation between bitcoin and speech, if bitcoin had been considering all manners of speeches against it maybe it could have been nowhere today, everyone has the freedom of speech while bitcoin remains unltared by any level of human speech levied against it.
I don’t mean to confuse anyone. This is not my analysis. The weapon position is from someone named Jason Lowery who works for the US Space Force. I do believe Bitcoin falls under speech because we have a 12 word seed phrase that gives us access to our property. Nobody can say we are not allowed to keep those 12 words in our head, speak those words, or write them down.
